Charter questions will change Oakland Park

March 3, 2013|By Sun Sentinel Editorial Board

Editor's Note:Voters in Oakland Park will be asked their permission on the March 12 ballot to make changes in their respective communities. The Sun Sentinel Editorial Board is providing recommendations on each of these questions and urges our readers to consider them carefully and vote accordingly.

VOTE YES on Question 1

This charter amendment attempts to correct a problem the commission encountered when Vice Mayor Anthony Niedwiecki stepped down and threw the leadership rotation for a loop. It would put third-place winners into the rotation to prevent any future gaps in leadership ranks caused by a commissioner's resignation.

VOTE YES on Question 2

On occasion, municipal governments need to clean up their governing charters to rid them of confusing language, renumber sections or clarify existing provisions. This ballot question asks voters to allow the city to amend the Oakland Park charter to make these necessary fixes.

VOTE YES on Question 3

At first blush, the wording of this ballot question raises a bigger question, which is: Shouldn't the city manager already be following the city's procurement code to let contracts for the construction of public improvements? As it turns out, the charter sometimes prevents that from occurring.

Today's charter prohibits the city manager from awarding a construction contract that exceeds $5,000 without first seeking public bids. City officials contend the provision doesn't belong in the charter and the $5,000 figure is a relic, since most public improvement contracts, such as replacing water and sewer lines or building new parks, are much more expensive.

The amendment would replace the current language with wording from the city's procurement code, which requires that contracts exceeding $25,000 be put out for public bid and be approved by the city commission. This change would treat smaller contracts similarly and give the city manager greater flexibility in dealing with very small public improvement contracts.

VOTE YES on Question 4

This good-government provision is something we'd like to see every South Florida city adopt. It would require commissioners to disclose any voting conflicts before participating in discussions on the matter. Oakland Park should be commended for bringing this issue before the voters.

All too often, elected officials wait until the vote itself to acknowledge they have a conflict and must abstain from voting. But a lot of consideration, discussion and soul searching takes place before a vote is cast, and there's no requirement that commissioners disclose their conflict until the last minute. This would change that.

VOTE YES on Question 5

Few voters turn out for municipal elections held in March. Indeed, cities are lucky if voter turnout exceeds 8 percent. So give credit to Oakland Park officials for attempting to change the charter and move the city election to the same date as November's general election, when there's greater voter interest and participation.

City officials already have worked with the Broward County Supervisor of Elections to trim municipal election costs, particularly for poll workers. So this change is more about increasing voter participation than saving money.

To make the change and maintain the commissioners' staggered terms, the charter change would mean commissioners would lose about four and a half months from their terms — a small price to pay for a big improvement to city elections.

Vote NO on Question 6

This amendment would eliminate elections for specific commission seats, and replace them with at-large contests that reward the top vote-getters. If approved by voters, all candidates would compete for open seats, rather than against a smaller field for a specific seat.

It's a subtle change, since candidates already have to run citywide. The obvious benefit is that it would ensure the most popular candidates are elected.

The drawback, though, is that it would make it more difficult for new and promising candidates to compete against better-known opponents, particularly former commissioners who want another shot at public office. City commission contests are one of the few opportunities for concerned citizens to test their ideas and temperment in convincing a wider audience that they can serve as elected leaders.

The way this question made its way to the ballot is troubling, too. The city's Charter Review Board initially rejected the idea. However, a small but persistent group of citizens brought the idea to the city commission, which voted to put the question on the ballot. Citizens should vote this amendment down on March 12th.